Archive Listing
December 11, 2007 - December 4, 2007

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

I'M BACK. Once again, we see why I'm needed. [Go screw yourself, InstaPunk.] This Behar bitch isn't a loose cannon. She's a useful idiot, which the left has always utilized abundantly. Any political movement that builds its platfom on the assumption that it is intellectually superior to all its opponents operates according to the rules of high society. There's an in-crowd so lofty that all the hangers-on are willing to do anything to impress, always hoping for the glamorous invite. (One reason the Hollywood set fits in perfectly.) The hierarchy is so well established that the peons expect to be sacrificed from time to time and experience no resentment when they are.

So Joy Behar is a sacrifice. She's an absolute nothing in liberal society, a D-class celebrity with zero accomplishments in the world of intellect or politics. Just a loud-mouthed comedian on the lowest scale of humor -- a self-caricature whose punchlines all depend on the stereotypes of her sex, station, and ethnicity. A dead typical female stand-up, as predictable as she is hackneyed and obnoxious. An Italian version of her equally rude Irish counterpart, Kathy Griffin. Both of them share the neurotic self-awareness that despite their unending ambition to be admired, the sad truth is that deep down, no matter how much they set store by their own wit, they themselves are the butt of their own jokes, pitiful, ridiculous, and flatly unlikeable people whose need for attention trumps even their own human dignity. Untouchables. (Cue laughtrack.)


The View is a neat metaphor for the social caste system I'm describing. Barbara Walters owns the show. It doesn't matter how thoroughly she enters into the byplay with Joy and the trailer-dyke Rosie O'Donnell. She has the infinite freedom of the quality slumming with the help. With a nod or a curled lip, she can set her clowns loose to wreak havoc or incinerate them in their tracks. This past week, she gave an infinitesimal nod to Behar that granted permission to accuse Republicans of causing Senator Tim Johnson's stroke and then to compare Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Hitler. Walters's motive? Very much like that of the Zulu chiefs who sent warriors up to the British lines to be shot down like dogs. By doing so, the Zulu lords learned the range of the British guns. Barbara is learning what libs can get away with in the new political season.

Apparently, the experiment was a marginal success in the eyes of the liberal nobility, despite some boos from the audience. No one produced a noose the way they would have if Elizabeth Hasselbeck had compared Cindy Sheehan to a fascisti collaborator. As a result,  Behar was not disciplined for accusing Republicans of Putin-like assault tactics. She wasn't compelled to apologize for being a grossly slanderous low-class shrew about Rumsfeld; she was allowed to offer a lame explanation that she was only making a joke, because isn't it really funny to compare a Republican retiring from 35 years of government service to the most frighteningly evil dictator in recorded human history? Of course it is. It's a hoot.

Me, I'm happy. I'm celebrating with the graphic above. InstaPunk took a lot of grief for posting a photo of that Nazi bastard Pat Buchanan in an S.S. uniform. I thought IP should have done it again, and again, just to drive home the point that Buchanan is a Jew-hating Nazi bastard. But I got overruled.

Now I've been vindicated by the most illustrious grande dame of political society. According to Barbara Walters, I have carte blanche to depict Joy Behar as a Nazi dominatrix, just because her politics are different from mine.  That is just so cool. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Baba Wawa. You're my idol, my ice queen, my punk babe of the week, and my future sex-slave. Consider yourself complimented.

Sieg heil, Behar bitch. How do you like it? Is it just another joke when you're the one wearing the swastika? Of course it is.

If I'd had more time, I'd have shopped Barbara Walters into a leather and latex nightmare too. But I'll leave that for another day. Maybe the next time Unteroffizier Behar follows orders without question.

P.S. And if there's anything you don't like about this post, stuff it. Remember, I'm the Time Person of the Year, every bit as great as you are. Don't you forget it.

One more thing. Mrs. Wuzzadem hit a grand slam this week. Read this all the way through.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

ANOTHER SWARTHMORON EPISTLE. Such great news. The educationally elect have at last noticed Christianity, and they are doing their very best to launch a belated rescue of all the fools who have been taken in by it over the past 2,000 years. The new offensive is being led -- with extraordinary tact -- by the magnificent intellectuals of academia with an assist from the educational television channels and the alphabet news networks.

Some of you may have tuned in last night to CBS's 48 Hours program called The Mystery of Christmas. It's a beautiful example of the intelligentsia's effort to lead lunkheaded Christians away from error toward a more acceptable kind of religion. The upside is that we're still apparently permitted to retain a kind of Christianity, a soupy, squishy faith in the possible goodness and wisdom of Jesus Christ. The downside is that we really do have to accept that the gospels are nothing more than lying propaganda written for the purpose of scoring political points against Rome and covering up the scandalous illegitimacy of Christ's birth. I mean, forget the immaculate conception and all that nonsense. Even the theologians don't believe in it anymore.

You say that's not true? Well, if you're CBS -- or TLC or the History Channel or the Discovery Nework -- it most certainly is true. Because the one theological scholar you simply cannot escape on these outlets is Elaine Pagels, who is always identified simply as a Professor of Religion at Princeton University. You're also more than likely to be hearing from FatherProfessor John Crossan, who has written many learned books about the real meaning of the New Testament. We are just so damned lucky that both of them happened to be available to share the truth with hard-hitting CBS reporter Maureen Maher, whose bio indicates that she received her own education from Loyola University in Chicago, a fine Catholic school that no doubt imparted to her the impeccable taste represented by the immaculate white jacket she wore in the cathedral segment of the show. We don't know if it was Loyola or CBS News that conferred upon her the scrupulous fairness she exhibited in her treatment of the crazed religious fantasies that surround the "story" of Christ's birth,  But, here, let her tell you the gist in her own words, courtesy of CBS video services.

I just love that little patronzing sing-song at the beginning -- "the baby Jesus, the manger, no room at the inn..." -- don't you? And her smooth definition of "what faith should be" as a paraphrase of Rodney King. Cool. Still, perhaps we can be forgiven by the Great Squishy God of Secular Peace and Getting Along if we point out that the "leading New Testament scholars" Maureen spent most of her time talking to (as opposed to sneering at) are chiefly known not as Christian scholars but as Christian apostates.

John Crossan's Wikipedia entry notes the following:


Regardless of his academic qualifications, a twice-married ex-priest should probably not be presented on network television as a mainstream Christian authority, particularly in the absence of any attempt to consult a theologian endorsed by the Roman Catholic faith. Yet none of the "many television documentaries about Jesus and the Bible" I've seen Crossan pontificating on has mentioned his controversial status.

All that we ever seem to hear from TV presenters about Elaine Pagels is that she's a Princeton professor. Most assuredly, we are not told about her provocative and activist role as a champion of heretical gnostic interpretations of Christian scripture and pseudo-scripture. Again, from Wikipedia:

A smart, very well educated, and extremely interesting woman, but not one who should be introduced as a "leading New Testament scholar" without any further explanation. The tone of the CBS show and others like it in the world of educational TV is intended to make Christians believe that the real experts have abandoned traditional faith for a modern, politically correct, and far less religious view of Christianity as Old/New Age philosophy couched in feel-good platitudes about altruism, social equality, and world peace.

All that is fine and dandy as a cultural fad, but it's not Christianity, and the determination to substitute it in place of the religious faith that created the world we live in is sinister political hackery. Pagels is not the prophet of a religious renewal; she is merely another in a long line of secular opportunists who have sought to redefine Christianity in ways convenient to the political fashions of their time.

CBS's The Mystery of Christmas is not surprising in any way. In fact, it's so predictable that I could have written a lot of the pap Maureen Maher utters in passing myself. What I don't get is who it is exactly they're trying to convince. Do they think the Bible-thumping fundamentalists they scorn and fear so much will be changed by anything Pagels, Crossan, or Maher have to say? I doubt it. Do they seriously think that the better educated Christians aren't literate about the issues they claim to be "uncovering" like some crime mystery? Maybe. But to me, the whole enterprise smacks of self-indulgence, as if they don't have any clear objective at all, but only an inchoate desire to be seen considering religion, so that all the impotent unwashed can behold the half-smiles, tolerant condescension, and meticulous patience of the only surviving gods, the mighty idols of the mass media. In this context, the repeatedly expressed desire not to offend is a kind of threat: Can you imagine what damage we'd wreak if we covered this as ruthlessly as we cover those idiot Republicans? We're supposed to quiver in our boots or fall to our knees. Or both. Do so if you want.

The only thing the rest of us can take from it is a clue about what patrician liberals running for office mean when they claim to be Christians. Memorize the picture of Elaine Pagels above. She is their priest and the chair of the Gnostic Party, which believes in absolutely nothing but the divine right of Princeton and company to tell the ignorant masses how to behave and what to think. The word 'gnostic' means 'knowing' after all, and the thing the smart people know best is that knowing is much superior to believing.

Phooey.

Merry Christmas, everybody.

Monday, December 18, 2006

EAGLES. That was cute and all, but most insurgencies are mere tantrums and are best handled the same way. Let the idiot child vent and then clap him in irons when he begins to tire.

Now, on to the important stuff. I have totally trashed the Philadelphia Eagles more than once in this blog, and I feel the need to give credit where credit is due. Where it's due is to Brian Dawkins, who is the greatest Philadelphia Eagle since Chuck Bednarik.

Late in the third period of yesterday's game, my best hope for a defeat of the Giants was a Dawkins safety blitz that would pressure Eli Manning into a too-hurried long pass which would be deflected by Brian Dawkins and then intercepted downfield by Brian Dawkins and run back all the way for a touchdown by Brian Dawkins.

Actually, that's almost how the Eagles did win the game. Dawkins defeated the New York Giants yesterday by making one-fifth of his team's tackles, forcing two fumbles, scoring his 31st lifetime interception, and carrying his teammates on his back to the brink of the playoffs. Somehow, he was simultaneously everywhere on the field -- much like he always is. Only this time, there were fewer overpraised superstars on the field to conceal the fact that this team's fortunes depend always, absolutely, on his implacable will to win.

Yes, others contributed. Jeff Garcia was hotheadedly inspirational and effective. Brian Westbrook was as brilliant as he would have been all season if the Eagles had decided to run the ball like an NFL team instead of toss it about perpetually like the Montreal Alouettes of the Canadian Badminton League. Andy Reid was 180-degrees opposite his usual self, actually displaying the guts to go for it on fourth-and goal in the first half. I'm still worrying that the strain of such a risky decision will result in a brief hospitalization for stress, which would not be good given the nearness of the climactic game with the Cowboys on Christmas Day. My fingers are crossed.

Regardless of what happens the rest of the way, all Eagles fans owe Brian Dawkins a game-long standing ovation. Without this soaring raptor their team would be 3 and 11. With him, they still have a chance to win their division.

That's what I call a true punk. Fly, Eagles, fly.

Friday, December 15, 2006

KRAUTS.34-39. I realized yesterday what we're up against with regard to the plight of Israel. Not because of the holocaust deniers' execration underway in Iran, although that's an important factor obviously. The most outrageous villains are always easy to spot. They're not as scary as the presumably decent people at the edges, the ones who have acquired the trick of squinting away the signs that the unthinkable is becoming not only thinkable but eminently possible.

EXHIBIT A:

Sean Hannity. He's aways been a pompous, undereducated blowhard who repeats the same handful of points ad nauseam. But his performance yesterday was one for the ages. He spent approximately an hour hosting a screaming match between David Horowitz and some idiot named Weber who's attending the Iran Holocaust Supporters' Convention, and he interrupted at intervals to denounce Weber as an anti-semite. In the event, Horowitz didn't need any help exposing Weber as a deceitful Jew-hating piece of scum. What was interesting was what happened afterwards. Hannity immediately reran a lengthy excerpt of his previous night's conversation with Mel Gibson, somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes of him French-kissing Gibson's ass: fawning over the speed of his mind, the power of his creativity, the gloriousness of his latest filmic bloodletting, and the incredible humility with which Gibson has responded to his recent public pillorying. Ad nauseam is an insufficient term for this particular display of feckless idolatry. And at no point did he appear to recognize the contradictions represented by the two segments.

I thought about the terrible things Gibson said in his drunken spree, I thought about the MSM and Hollywood libs who ostentatiously condemned him at the time, and I thought about the Uber-Tolerant left who have adopted the threadbare cause of the Palestinians, and I saw exactly how the second holocaust will come about.

THE 'ONE GOOD EXCUSE' THEOREM:

Make no mistake. Gibson is an anti-semite. Not all forms of belligerent, hateful drunkenness are created equal. The inexcusable things said to family and friends in such episodes admit of multiple interpretations -- a gush of personal pain, the twisted expression of long repressed grievances, a cry for help, an inside-out bid for intimate contact. Not so with more categorical topics like politics and race. This is the area where the adage "in vino veritas" rings true. If this is the realm into which your existential rage reaches in a fit of chemical-induced insanity, you are revealing something fundamental about the state of your soul.

But as far as Hannity is concerned, Gibson has an excuse. Drunken anti-semitism is forgivable. It can be overlooked, explained away, exalted into the the transcendant virtue of repentant humility. Unlike Weber, Gibson doesn't need to be interrogated about where he stands on the question of just how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. That would be impolite. Hannity also has an incentive to forgive Gibson because so many of the liberal MSM and Hollywood critics of Gibson's behavior are clearly explicit or implicit sympathizers with the Palestinian and other Arabs who are plotting the extermination of Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This last cliche sounds as if it might be the unifying principle, but it isn't. If it were, MSM libs who blasted Mel Gibson would be embracing Israel and the Jews, as well as the U.S. policies the muslim nations see as transparent proofs of irrational American allegiance to Israel. But they're not. Mel Gibson's outrageous behavior merely provided them with an opportunity to be showily indignant in a way that could be cited later as evidence that they never intended or wanted the ghastly fate that befell the Israelis when Iran unexpectedly launched its nukes. Another beautiful excuse.

Of course, not all of this theorem is about Gibson. Academic lefties didn't waste a lot of time piling on, and in parts of Europe, notably including the U.K., Gibson's popularity actually rose a notch because of his diatribe. The truth is, he's irrelevant to their excuse, which has mostly to do with their preference for the incompetent over the capable. Translated, this means they have empathy for the weak, who are always the victims of the strong. Why? Because they know in their own souls that they also have become the weak, and by dint of experience they know that the greatest strength of the weak against the strong is continuous irrational accusation that wins not on its merits, but on its refusal to see reason ever.

Europeans hate the Jews because they have a history of being subjugated by the aristocracy, that group which claimed for centuries to be their betters. Jews are even worse than the Europeans' ancestral oppressors because their longevity, survival, and ultimate prosperity demonstrate that they're the most fearsome force in human society -- a natural aristocracy. You can't repeal the ascendancy of the Jews, or mitigate it with socialist bureaucracies. Jews will always find a way to excel, and to produce real accomplishments, and make everybody else look bad in the process.

That's why the Arabs hate them, too. Israel from the moment of it birth has been surrounded by 300 million mortal enemies who have never demonstrated the ability, the industry, the courage, or the vision to drive them from their ancient homeland. The only weapons the Arabs possess are perseverance and hatred. Thus far, Israel has proven their equal at perseverance, which leaves only hatred and the low treacherous cunning of the inferior who knows himself to be inferior.

America just doesn't get how deep and dangerous this hatred is because, with the exception of the hard left, Americans are the exception to the rest of the world, unafraid of competition, even with a tiny, ancient desert tribe who called themselves Chosen and whose survival unto the present day with a distinct cultural identity proves it.

The rest of the world loves to indict America for bigotry because with the right kind of squinting the unique American experience can be the one sufficient excuse for their own eternal racial and ethnic hatreds. Except that the squinting misses everything important. Americans are different from everybody else. The spirit of competition on relatively equal terms is so ingrained in us that we have also assimilated the value of admiring those who excel on their playing field, whatever that field is. Thus, we are able to say to ourselves, yeah, I don't care much for Jews, but that Jew is a real smart feller, and he made me better by competing with me. That's why ordinary, average Americans embraced Sandy Koufax, and Hank Aaron (even when he broke the Bambino's record), and Miles Davis, and Jack Kennedy, and Fiorello La Guardia, and Joe Louis, and Juan Marichal, and Al Jolson, and Ella Fitzgerald, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the black muslim Muhammed Ali, and Philip Roth, and Michael Jordan, and...

The American experience has been so profound that the overwhelming majority of us now reject utterly the idea that a member of any ethnic group who truly wishes to belong to our country cannot become a vital and valuable part of it, and should not be prevented from doing so in any categorical way.

The ironic danger to that American experience is those who continue to identify with European sensibilities in the belief that Europeans are more civilized than Americans because they have been there longer than we have been here. Unfortunately, these oafs tend to be some of our most educated in formal terms, and as a group they tend to be the ones who have the most dexterity at constructing a rational excuse for the most depraved possible positions. A New York Times columnist -- or a Dartmouth political science major or a Hollywood leading lady or an ex-president from Georgia -- who tolerates the flat, ugly candor of muslims -- Palestinian or otherwise -- who chant "Death to Israel" without realizing that these angry Arabs mean it in the most literal possible sense is an accomplice in what will occur if decent people don't stop it.

So are the Sean Hannitys. And everyone else who has dreamt up that perfect personal excuse for not seeing that Holocaust II is being actively planned right now. The consequence will be exactly what it was for Holocaust I. If you didn't play an active role in preventing it, you helped bring it about.

To hell with Mel Gibson. To hell with Jimmy Carter. And, for that matter, to hell with Sean Hannity.

If you don't listen to this broadcast by the great liberal MSM saint Edward R. Murrow, to hell with you too.

Back to Archive Index